Mr VJP

First of all, Obama is reducing the size of the military and shutting down the ground wars in every battle arena in the world, as soon as he can. Second, what will the military be doing with these rifles if that is the case? Ever stop to think who the U.S. Special Operations Command is and what they could be directed to do with these rifles by the Commander in Chief? You may find one of these new Remington rifles being used against US citizens on US soil in the not to distant future. I wonder if Remington is OK with that situation?

The BATF and FBI didn't have any quandary about attacking Waco, TX did they?

Don't post stuff like this. Where do you thing Cuomo gets his ideas from?

So if you can kill an unwanted baby, why not any unwanted child, regardless of age? If you lose your job and no longer have the means to support your kids, can you legally kill them? If you just don't want kids after you have them, can you kill them? Abortion=Murder. You can try to justify it any way you want, but it's you who has the sick mind.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/known-terrorist-training-camps-in-the-u-s-map/ http://counterjihadreport.com/category/homeland-security/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281074,00.html#ixzz2MgCVOznm

The source is Martin Mawyer of Law Enforcement Today, not the undercover operative he quoted. As to the rest of your questions, I can tell you didn't take time to read the entire article. There is a lot of factual information out there about these camps all over the country and the government is well aware of them. The question is, why are they not doing something about them?

An Islamic terrorist camp, preparing men for Jihad, women having 8 or 9 kids, all of them on welfare, food stamps and state aid, and all of it going on for 4 generations now? http://lawenforcementtoday.com/tag/hancock-ny/ If the BATFE and FBI can attack Waco, TX, why are they not closing this terrorist camp down? This is very telling of how our government's preferential treatment towards Muslims is going to get a lot of folks killed!

Josephmrtn, that was Iceland that fired all of their elected officials.

All of the above posts considered, look at the 7mm-08 instead. Same performance as the 7x57, but more choices in a new rifle and easier to get factory ammo for.

I feel it is a unique idea that may have practical uses for bow hunters if it were legal, for say feral pigs, varmits, etc. I also think if NY State ever eventually gets it's way and achieves a total ban on firearms, or enough regulation to make it vitually impossible to own one, or use it for anything, these may be a good option to allow hunters to keep hunting.

The .410 doesn't have enough energy to be a reliable deer gun past 50 yards. Penetration isn't reliable on deer at most deer hunting ranges. Though it would be suitable for a young hunter due to the low recoil, if the shot will be 50 yards or less. Finding a rifled barrel for the average .410 is impossible, outside of a custom barrel. The accuracy of a .410 slug fired from a cylinder bored smoothbore barrel can be quite good. In general, it is only a valid deer gun if it shoots slugs accurately and is used at 50 yards or less.

Millions being spent to initiate this law, millions more to be spent in court against all of the lawsuits, lots of folks leaving NY, gun manufacturers planning to pull up stakes and move, laying off thousands, small FFL's moving or closing their doors, gun owners being prosecuted and jailed. Tell me Mr Cuomo, is this your idea of FORWARD and CHANGE? If so, you are truly taking us down the road to tyranny!

I'm upset with all those who were told this would happen, but continued to support all calls for a ban on "assault weapons". Maybe now they see, it wasn't about black guns, it's about EVERY gun! Nobody is going to knock on your door and take your guns? It's beyond uninformed and naive, it is plain stupid.

If you weren't scared by Cuomo when he was running for office, you weren't paying attention.

Funny how people mock poll numbers when they don't show what they want them to, but push them on the uninformed when they show the results they want them to. The "media" has been selling the idea the majority of NRA members want more gun control. I can't believe anyone, especially a gun owner, would believe that crap.

Bet she'd like to be a politician some day. She obviously gets her info from Leftist propaganda sources. Does she know politicians are the folks who dictate foreign policy? Does she know the military simply carries out the directives of elected officials and the Commander in Cheif that she probably just voted for? Does she know asking questions is a lot easier than giving answers? Many 5 year olds ask difficult questions that cannot be answered in simple terms or understood by simple minds. This is what is meant by the phrase, "I was young and stupid once."

Wouldn't be the first time. Remember Kent State? Obama wouldn't hesitate to give the order if a revolution began. It happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco too. But he'd be more likely to kill American citizens with unmanned drones from afar. That's his MO these days.

Absolutely correct and I'm 100% in agreement with it.

With the current push to ban many guns in America by this administration, I think it is totally political to point out the fact that he will ban our guns, but keep his. Gun Control Is Great, If You Are The One Who Controls All Of The Guns!

Everything Greybeard says is true, and that is why it's called the "Legal System" and not the "JUSTICE System". It's all legal, but there is no Justice! Jury Nullification of any prosecutions under this law is our best hope if it isn't overturned in the courts.

Seems to fit better here though.

What forum do you think it should be posted in? I believe it is posted in the right forum. I find it more aggravating than funny though. The hypocrisy of this POTUS is bordering on criminal!

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/13591014831w1xagqkhky This poll is the only one that was done with access to the NRA membership list. The results are not surprising. The fact that many believe the BS polls the anti's put out, is surprising.

Police CHIEFS are political appointees that get where they are by kissing the azzes of the elected officials they serve. Do you expect them to say anything that would go against their political benefactors? Of course not. They won't bite the hands that feed them. The line officers, on the other hand are more free to speak honestly, and they do not support gun bans against law abiding gun owners!

When President Obama finished announcing his wish list of things he'd like to do to combat violence (and simultaneously eliminate the most popular firearm in the country) one SHOT Show attendee summed the entire performance in a single word: "bu_____it". Not a bad description of the vagaries, time-worn phraseology and continued demonization of gun owners that the administration has used to bring a long-awaited assault plan out of the closet and train it on gun owners. "Now Is The Time" trumpets the cover of Mr. Obama's plan, and the subsequent fourteen pages offer a glimpse into the ultimate goals of this admnistration. As a firearms-focused community, I'd suggest we widen our viewpoint beyond the immediate and look at the long-term ideas expressed in a plan that looks more like a PowerPoint presentation than a considered solution to violence. For example: the requirement of a criminal background check on ALL firearms sales. Sounds like a pretty good idea-until you look at the ultimate goal of this proposal: background checks on all firearms sales. All, in this instance, means all including private transactions. There's language that supposedly covers "certain transfers" between family members and "temporary transfers" for hunting and sporting purposes. So how would that temporary transfer be documented? Will I be allowed to give a friend a letter saying that I'm loaning them a gun for sport shooting or will I be required to report a temporary transfer, record the serial number and description of the firearm, and then be given a "govermnent approved form" which must accompany the referenced firearm? What happens if the temporary recipient neglects to includ the form or loses it? Will the firearm in question then have to be surrendered to the authorities? Regarding the "call to licensed dealers and private sellers to do their part" through Executive Action....the option already exists. But does the Executive Action propose to reward FFLs for carring out the transactions? If the government creates that sort of compensation to FFLs for private transactions, will dealers quickly find that "free government money" incentive enough to fall in line with later suggestions? In each instance where resistance is likely, there's the common Washington solution: toss it some money. For instance, there's a referenced "incentive" for states to share information with the background check systems. The Justice Department is set to invest $20 million from FY2013's budget to give states "stronger incentives to make this data available". Of course, we've all know who's paying the freight on this one- taxpayers. Here's the one that's most disturbing to me: Make sure "dangerous people" are prohibited from having guns. OK, we all agree that those with mental illnesses be forbidden from owning firearms. But that's not without an overall concern: who determines mental illness? Will it take a hearing with a set of standards to be met, or can a law enforcement officer or a physician be able to arbitrarily declare one deficient? There's another gotcha in there as well...the plan doesn't just seek to keep "dangerous" people from having guns, there's also language that specifically refers to "untrustworthy" individuals. What makes one "untrustworthy" - would dissent against government policies qualify, or more accurately, disqualify you from firearms ownership. See where this is headed? It's the death of 1,000 cuts- and sets a very dangerous precedent. A president seeking to lead by fiat - or decree. I wasn't a history major, but I do seem to remember this country being settled by people who'd had enough of decrees with no checks and balances. (NOTE: You can read the document yourself here) Since the called-for bans on "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" have been largely been discussed to death, there's no reason to dedicate space to reminding you that a gun is a tool and a magazine- regardless the capacity- is nothing more than the fuel supply. It is the operator that determines the intent. A real concern is "finishing the job of getting armor-piercing ammunition" off the street. Last week, we reported that the ATF was counfounded in its attempts to define armor piercing (AP) ammunition. In fact, many of the so-called "green" ammos endorsed by environmental groups concerned with lead contamination from traditional ammunition falls under the ill-defined AP category. The National Shooting Sports Foundation characterized the proposed actions as missing "the central issue involved in violence where a firearm is misused is the unauthorized access to the firearm." "We believe it is critical to first focus on the unauthorized access to firearms by irresponsible persons and those not legally qualified to possess them." To that end, the trade organization agreed that long-needed changes to the NICS system should include all appropriate mental health and other records, including restraining orders, into the NICS system. Likewise, there was no argument with a call for safety and responsibility. The National Rifle Association says the administration's attacking firearms while ignoring children was not the solution. Rather, the NRA suggests that "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy." Iowa Senator Charles Grassley wasn't nearly so politic in his response. Instead, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee called the president's programs "intellectually dishonest" by "arguing for new programs restricting the sale of guns, when this administration deliberately allowed the illegal sale of guns to known straw purchasers." "Instead of a thoughtful, open and deliberate conversation," Grassley says, "President Obama is attempting to institute new restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right. It's an invitation for long, drawn-out court battles and more mistrust by the grass roots, and it's the wrong way to unite people behind a proposal on such a powerful and emotional topic. The legislative proposals face an uphill battle in Congress, especially those that include billions of dollars in new federal spending at a time when the government's credit card is maxed out." So why the sudden rush to issue Executive Orders? I'd say that it's recognition of the fact that emotional responses to tragedies fade, allowing cooler heads to prevail-and making it possible for a facts-based argument to be made against a plan ostensibly assembled in a few days. Senator Grassley characterization of the President's barrage of executive orders was a demonstration of his belief the "Second Amendment can be tossed aside." Grassley feels "Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment a power grab along the same pattern we've seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people." That brings up a knotty subject: Executive Orders. There is no constitution provision or statute that permits executive orders. There is a grant of "executive power" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and a further position to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed". In the past, presidents have used these so-called "Constitutional reasonings" as the basis for their issuing their orders. There are, however, two previous cases that have limited what a President may Constitutionally decree in an executive order. One, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al v. Reich 74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996), rehearing denied, 83 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 1996), gives a strong legal precedent in the separation of powers- and the obvious fact that Congress considers firearms regulations its purview, not the White House. The second case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) should also reinforce limits on the President's presumption of authority in this instance. In 1952, President Truman's attempt to put all the steel mills in the country under federal control was invalidated under the decision that it was an attempt to make law rather than clarifying a law created by Congress. Another point in Youngstown is the ruling that Truman's executive order violated the sacrosancity of private property. If an executive order gets close to areas under constitution protection (think 2nd Amendment) the President must cite explicit justification. As you may have noticed, this adminstration isn't strong on explicit justification. And the courts have shown more than a slight willingness to give strict scrutiny to any presidential order appearing to violate a constitutional right-like firearms ownership. That's encouraging, but what remains discouraging is the lack of a cohesive action plan by the national organizations. This offensive against firearms owners isn't disorganized; in fact, it more closely resembles the 2012 Presidential campaign at this point. The Obama camp used their strategies of organizing and energizing their side to the apparent befuddlement of the Republican party. The lack of a cohesive plan- that has been shelf-ready and waiting to be enacted -points out a disconcerting lack of planning and forethought by groups supposed to represent the interests of their members. In other words, gun owners may find themselves acting unilaterally or in small groups should some group not step forward with an action plan, talking points for the average citizen, and a message that humanizes gun owners. Solomon, one of the wisest rulers in history put it best, "Where there is no vision, the people perish, but he who keeps the law, happy is he." (1 Samuel 3:1) As always, we'll keep you posted. --Jim Shepherd The Outdoor Wire